J-F C. Morfin
jfc at morfin.org
Sun Jan 30 03:16:40 CET 2011
At 23:01 29/01/2011, John C Klensin wrote:
>--On Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:15 PM +0000 Shawn Steele
><Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > I'm somewhat concerned about the ensuing compatibility :) It
> > seems like vendors have 4+ options right now.
> > * IDNA2003
> > * IDNA2008 (no mapping)
> > * 5895 mappings
> > * UTS#46 mappings
> > It is unfortunate that there's this much confusion.
>To make things worse,
Do not worry, ML-DNS will permit to create others. Happily (?) health
and family problems are still delaying me (for months now), in
completing the experimental port and embedding of a DNS software to
ML-DNS. This gave time to others to finish libraries and most of all
to wait for a final draft-iab-idn-encoding version and its
publication as an RFC to make sure we stay architecturally compatible.
However, I would like to underline something very important. Until
now, all of us and IEFT work under the assumption that te Internet
is global. For two days this is no more. When Mubarak closed the
Egyptian networks, he closed the business of many people (mostly
arabic) around the world because Egypt offers good site hosting. If
closing access to foreign hosts (as you implied when commenting on
Tan Tin Wee presentation in Geneva, by the way) becomes a possible
political move, it implies that there is no international
trustability any more. If you want to offer a service which is
independant from foreign laws (and for us, this also means US law) it
should be local, once Govs start to locally decide about their
international internet zone and foreign customes. If Mubarak did it,
who's next? Barak Obama?
ICANN imposing gTLDs to respect the US international policy strategy
will impact in the same manner. The will be "niTLD" (non ICANN) IDN
usages will be on language and business trusted or politcal areas.
Please make your Draft RFCed as Olaf promized it, or declare it dead.
Compiling questions is good, developping and testing response also helps.
>* ICANN is deploying (or letting others deploy, depending on how
>you look at it) new TLDs that are required to be
>IDNA2008-conforming. If someone comes forward and says "we
>need one interpretation of a string to be a variant of the
>other" in the TLD name, they get one or both delayed, possibly
>* While we've been concerned about situations in which all name
>resolution on a host goes through a single OS-based "resolve
>name" interface, the IDNA model in which individual applications
>do their own IDN (at least partially non-ASCII-string) to
>A-label processing also exists out there. In applications that
>do their own IDN processing, there is the potential for a single
>user sitting in front of a single computer to see different
>behavior in different applications, or even in different
>interfaces to the same application.
>One way of looking at the problem with the four cases you list
>above is that at least the advocates of each of the last three
>believe that, if only everyone adopted their model, all would be
>well. And each of them is more or less correct; not that
>knowing that does anyone much good. (I'm assuming that everyone
>more or less agrees at this point that "IDNA2003 forever" would
>not be a good idea.)
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update